Deputy John Connor gave me notice of his intention to raise the matter as to when the Minister for the Environment intends to sanction plans for the proposed new bridge on the River Suck at Athleague, County Roscommon.
Adjournment Debate. - Athleague (Roscommon) Bridge.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this issue in the Dáil this evening. A campaign has been in progress over the past 20 years for the construction of a new bridge on the River Suck in the village of Athleague. The exact age of the present bridge structure is not known but there is general agreement that it is over 150 years old. Visually, it is an attractive six-arch stone structure which makes it quite unique. It is also unique in the context of its age. However, from a user's point of view — there are many users — Athleague bridge has very few attractions.
Immediately, west of the bridge there is located two major agri-industries that generate between them hundreds of traffic movements in both directions across the bridge on a daily basis. A large proportion of this traffic is very heavy consisting of 60ft and 40 ft, refrigerated containers bound for or returning from the country's main ports and long liquid bulk tankers which service Athleague creamery. In addition, traffic is generated by the 150 workers in the meat plant and the creamery and this traffic must cross the bridge on a daily basis. It goes without saying that there is the ordinary day to day flow of traffic going through the village of Athleague which has nothing to do with the industrial traffic across the bridge.
The expert value of the meat product from Kepac Limited, situated immediately beside the bridge, is about £60 million in the current year — approximately 22 per cent of all lamb exports from this country is from that plant. Every ounce of this product is transported across the bridge, within minutes of leaving the plant if conditions allow, on its way to the main ports. Very frequently this traffic is delayed from 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the length of the queue, and more than once this company have suffered heavy penalties arising from late arrivals in port and delay in shipping, directly caused by delays on this bridge which is less than a quarter of a mile from the plant. Athleague creamery have also suffered substantial loss arising from delays on the bridge.
However, delays are not the only problem as the bridge is also extremely hazardous. On both approach roads to the bridge there are acute bends and visibility is reduced to a few metres. The carriageway on the bridge if less than 16ft from one parapet wall to the other. That is well below the standard acceptable width of a single carriageway on a national or main road. I would also mention that the river area at the bridge is an area of high amenity and many children as well as adults use it in summertime for recreation and swimming which can also be hazardous.
On 5 November I asked the then Minister for the Environment in a written question if he would sanction plans for the new bridge in Athleague, County Roscommon, which were submitted to his Department by Roscommon County Council and if he would fund the project in the 1992 road works programme. The Minister replied that, as this bridge is on a non-national road, responsibility for its improvement and maintenance rests with Roscommon County Council and the costs of such works fall to be financed by that authority from their own resources, supplemented by the discretionary grant provided annually by his Department. He said that in these circumstances sanction for the plans is not required, but that is absolute rubbish. Sanction for this project is required by the Department. The Minister asked Roscommon County Council to submit to him detailed plans for the bridge. If sanction is not required why did the Minister ask for these plans?
In 1990 the Department of the Environment provided £100,000 to carry out strengthening works on the bridge. Therefore I hope the Minister will not try to argue this evening that the Department have no responsibility for the funding of the bridge. Responsibility rests with the Department and I plead with the Minister that, of the £781,000 which it will cost to build the bridge and realign the road at each end, at least half of that amount should be provided in 1992. That is very necessary given the volume of traffic using the bridge every day of the year.
I appreciate the Deputy's interest in this matter, which involves the improvement of the existing bridge over the River Suck at Athleague. The works proposed here are quite considerable. They involve the construction of a six arch extension to the existing bridge with associated changes on the approaches to the bridge and at an estimated cost in excess of £600,000.
This bridge is on a non-national road and responsibility for works on non-national roads rests with the local authority concerned, in this case Roscommon County Council. As the former Minister stated in reply to a recent parliamentary question, the cost of such works would normally fall to be financed by Roscommon County Council from their own resources, supplemented by the discretionary grant provided annually by my Department. Sometimes my Department give special grants to road authorities in respect of certain works which are required on non-national roads and which would be considered to be of special importance on account of their nature or strategic location. Indeed special grants of £144,621 have already been paid to Roscommon County Council for strengthening this bridge over the period 1987-90. Unfortunately the moneys available to me for such grants are limited — special grants amounted to only £5.67 million in 1991 and there is already a large number of meritorious projects, at an estimated cost of over £60 million awaiting funding from this source.
We are looking at this matter afresh and, while no commitment can be given that a special grant will be made available towards the cost of the works proposed for Athleague, I can say that consideration will be given as to the possibility of providing such a grant to assist Roscommon County Council in carrying out these works. The matter will have to be considered in the context of the road grant allocations for 1992, the amounts which can be provided for special grants and the competing demands of other projects for such grants. We will keep the matter in mind and see what we can do with the funds available to us. Many of the projects are very worthwhile, but there is a limit to the resources available.